HKSAR v. LEE HO YAN

HKSAR v. LEE HO YAN

Where the magistrate accepts evidence that at a public location the appellant offered and explained sexual services and charges, that conduct constitutes soliciting within s147(1)(a) even if prior online negotiations occurred; prior arrangements did not negate solicitation at the public meeting and the conviction is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. LEE HO YAN
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: HKSAR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 February 2010
Case Number
HCMA640/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (soliciting Under Crimes Ordinance S147(1)(a)) / Appeal Against Conviction (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Soliciting, Section 147(1)(a) Crimes Ordinance, Solicitation in Public Place, Admissibility of Evidence, Internet Advertising
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Public Order Soliciting Section 147(1)(a) Crimes Ordinance Solicitation in Public Place Admissibility of Evidence +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

HKSAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (soliciting Under Crimes Ordinance S147(1)(a)) / Appeal Against Conviction (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s147(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance applied to the facts
  2. 2 Whether the conduct at the MTR exit amounted to soliciting
  3. 3 Whether solicitation occurred in a public place

Ratio Decidendi

Where the magistrate accepts evidence that at a public location the appellant offered and explained sexual services and charges, that conduct constitutes soliciting within s147(1)(a) even if prior online negotiations occurred; prior arrangements did not negate solicitation at the public meeting and the conviction is therefore safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and fine of $5,000 affirmed